Posted: February 24th, 2010 by Militant Libertarian
A reader and show listener asks:
I have a hypothetical question for you…
If one takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution.. doesn’t that put that individual at odds with the government as it currently exists?
With respect to an Oath to the Constitution putting us at irreconcilable odds with the present power ruling this Nation… I would say that this Country is under the tight control of offshore banks, the Federal Reserve and its sister institutions, the Bank of England, etc. They, along with the Zionist element and an ill-defined cabal of Anglo-American, masonic go-alongs (for lack of a better handle), have our political and credit systems sewn-up. Yes, our Oath to protect and defend makes us the bitter enemy of the grotesque thing that presently claims to be our government.
Our “representatives” to Congress and our “senators” are whores paid to enact a stage play contrived to beguile us into thinking that the power of government is still in our (the people’s) hands if we would but take it up, i.e. write more letters, send more emails and telegrams, make more phone calls to our “elected representatives,” become precinct delegates, whatever.
Its all a bunch of hooey. The Country has been under a coup since at least 1963, some would say 1861.
Certainly, our currency has been controlled by a private institution, in flagrant violation of the Constitution, since 1913, and not much else matters once that particular power slips from the hands of the people.
If you take a realistic look at the elective process, you will find that both the favored, or seated, candidate and all of the “viable” alternative candidates in any given election are consistent in their policies with respect to the big agenda items of the New World Order. No coincidence.
Sure, they will vary in a few domestic policies, like gun control, incremental tax code changes, etc. But with respect to keeping our southern border wide open, intensifying the domestic security state (controlling “Bubba”), maintaining the post 9-11 foreign wars, integrating us into the North American Union, and thence into the One World, they are the same.
No significant coalition of anti-establishment candidates will ever receive sufficient funding, or sufficiently fair treatment in the controlled press, to become a countervailing force against these traitors in our Federal Legislature.
The overthrow of the present system of controlled opposition, two-parties-that-are-one, the phony dialectic — whatever one wishes to call it — cannot be enacted through that system. And, thus shall things remain until the people at large are made so materially uncomfortable that they are forced to resist. By that time, the gulag state we now see taking shape will have matured, accommodations for the non-compliant made ready.
The coming conflict, one sided as it now seems, will definitely be for keeps. Refusniks in the death camps. The rest quiet and Soviet.
The hand of the people whom I am attempting to describe, the haters of all things Western, all things Caucasian, will also soon be forced. More moderate, intermediate methods of control are going to obsolesce pretty quickly in the coming drama because the alternative media has created, in the last few years and perhaps unexpectedly, a faction in the population, albeit a modest minority, which is fully awake to the vile endgame the powers have in mind for this continent. There will be resistance. Not as much as we might hope for. But as the violence displayed in reaction to this non-compliance intensifies, the “authorities” might have a more difficult task than they presently anticipate — by dint of the alienation their methods will have sown. Admittedly, “more difficult” would have to be pretty heavy, though, because the Powers already look like they’re getting ready for a war here.
Ironically, there was an accommodation made by the Founders for a political solution to just the kind of crack we presently find ourselves in. Its a long shot, though. And, I can’t see it ever being allowed, by the people who hold the purse strings, to flourish.
In the 1990s the British called it devolution, though that term isn’t legally accurate when applied to the United States because the States never surrendered their sovereignty when forming the Union. But, it serves to convey the general idea.
In essence, as the Federal hegemon becomes sufficiently intrusive in the coming years, such that even the most complacent “citizen” will have difficulty maintaining his non-involvement in politics, State sovereignty movements may become viable. States can interfere with unjust, unconstitutional Federal mandates through nullification (messy, complex process) or through outright secession. The seeds of this process are already germinating in Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming and, depending on your interpretation, a number of other states. But, the people at large still often confuse such movements with disloyalty to America. Hopefully the Rahm Emanuels and David Axelrods of this world will keep pushing until more people look to their own State for shelter from the Feds. This would be a welcome “devolution,” by any name.
Some hope to see a number of States combine into coalitions in order to fortify one another’s resolve to break central government tyranny. Later, if desired, the United States, in its original conception as a mutual defense pact between sovereign states, might be reconvened.
As far as I understand my own obligation to Country and Constitution, helping this process along is the essence of the Oath to which your question refers, and the definition of Duty as defined by the Declaration of Independence.
The current junta which runs this cattleyard we still call the United States has no more regard for the will of the people than any third world dictatorship has for its population.
As evidence of this, I suggest that one look at the poll numbers regarding foreign wars, foreign aid, immigration policy, national sovereignty and taxation. Then compare those numbers to the voting record of our rep.s. One quickly finds that there is no representative government here and, thus, no duly elected government. The two sets of numbers really are that disparate.
The current system not only stands athwart the rights of the people but is, in fact, the mortal enemy of every single soul who takes to heart the Oath you mentioned in your email.
Thin as the chance of the States reclaiming their lawful sovereignty is, I believe that such a pass is the one hope of liberty on this continent. And, if hope is that thin here, it leaves pretty slim pickens for the rest of the world, doesn’t it? -D.W.